David Miliband: Britain is betraying its proud history of helping the displaced

Strife during wartime: Britain took thousands of Jewish children from war-torn Europe in the Thirties Imagno/Getty Images

In 1940, my father and grandfather fled from Belgium to the UK. They were accepted into the country as refugees from Nazi Germany. In 1945, when the Second World War finished, my grandfather went back to find his wife and daughter who had been in hiding with a Catholic family in Belgium. He then applied to emigrate to the UK with them. His application was turned down. The Home Secretary of the time said that he could not sanction “a flood”.

So I understand from family experience the difference between being a refugee and being an immigrant. And I understand the importance of the difference. Refugees are fleeing for their lives. Immigrants, by contrast, are seeking a better life.

The point is not that one is good and the other bad. It is that the difference matters — to the rights of the individuals and the response of civilized countries. That is why the doublespeak in Europe about the current crisis of people fleeing Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia is so distressing. And why the failure of Britain — the country of Kindertransport in the 1930s, the country which led the drive to codify the rights of refugees after the Second World War — is so shaming.

The origins of this crisis are simple to diagnose. Decade-old wars in Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo show no prospect of coming to an end; the conflict in Afghanistan is far from quelled; the newer war in Syria is consuming Iraq; and the wider phenomenon of regional instability of proxy wars is causing chaos in Yemen. Reports of widespread torture and harsh conscription policies in Eritrea are pervasive.

The flow of people running for their lives is the result. Last year 20 million people left their countries to find refuge. A further 40 million fled their homes but stayed within their own countries.

Most refugees stop in neighbouring states. The figures from the Syria conflict are staggering. Turkey hosts 1.8 million refugees. In Lebanon the figure is 1.1 million, Jordan at least 600,000, and Iraq 250,000. Globally, more than 80 per cent of refugees are in poor, developing countries. And the response of the rich world has been inadequate.

In Syria the current UN appeal is 34 per cent funded. The figures for the DRC, Somalia and Afghanistan are 45 per cent, 33 per cent and 48 per cent respectively.

So humanitarian provision — health, education, protection for women and girls, economic support — is weak. The pressure on host countries grows. Refugees run out of savings (from Syria we are talking about middle-class people leaving the country). And so they try to reach Europe.

"To pretend that because we are an island we have no role suggests that this is a moral crisis as well as a political one"

David Miliband

The only way to address this crisis is to deal with those fleeing to Europe as well as those who have landed on Europe’s shores. Addressing the flow does not just mean weasel words about achieving a political settlement in Syria. It means effective humanitarian provision in the neighbouring states.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has said 130,000 of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees should be resettled. That legal route to hope is vital to undercut the claims of the criminal gangs that the only way to get into Europe is through them.

Within Europe, there are three priorities for the summit on September 14. The German government has bravely set the bar high.

Read more

The first is to treat refugees arriving in Europe with humanity and dignity. This means dramatically improving the humanitarian response in Greece. My organisation is building toilets and water facilities on the Greek islands where two-thirds of the refugees entering Europe are arriving. The EU needs to commit to provide funding and technical support for an organised, effective humanitarian operation — plus restoring the naval effort that last year stopped the drownings at sea.

The second is to increase safe, legal routes to Europe for refugees. With very few safe and legal routes into Europe, refugees are left with no option but to take deadly journeys by sea to Greece and Italy, at the hands of smugglers and criminal gangs. European countries have made limited use of the many tools available to bring in refugees safely and legally.

For example, EU member states have taken in only just over 44,000 Syrians since 2013 through resettlement and humanitarian admission, with Germany taking the vast majority (35,000). Resettlement, humanitarian admissions, academic scholarships and family reunification should all be part of effective legal routes to safety.

The third is to make Europe’s asylum system fairer for refugees, with responsibility shared among all member states. Europe needs a comprehensive, common asylum policy with minimum standards of protection so that all asylum applications are processed according to international standards. Asylum-seekers should be able to apply to states other than Italy and Greece, especially where they have family connections and job opportunities.

This would mean Britain taking its head out of the sand. Just 216 Syrians have been given refugee status in Britain this year. That figure needs to move to tens of thousands.

To pretend that because we are an island we have no role suggests that this is a moral crisis as well as a political one. It is also short-sighted. The UK is attempting to negotiate reforms to the EU; what better way to alienate your potential friends than to let them address an overwhelming crisis alone?

The International Rescue Committee works in the most war-torn parts of the world. Yet today we have staff deployed to ensure basic water and sanitation in one of Europe’s tourist hotspots. There could be no greater commentary on the foolishness and mean-mindedness of Europe’s response to the crisis.